staffing practices of high-quality after- school programs · i staffing practices of high-quality...

Staffing Practices of High-Quality After-School Programs Ajay Khashu Nikole Lobb Dougherty June 2007 Prepared by The After-School Corporation for Cornerstones for Kids

We thank Cornerstones for Kids for their support of this work but acknowledge that the findings and conclusions presented in this report are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Cornerstones for Kids. © Cornerstones for Kids

i Staffing Practices of High-Quality After-School Programs

Cornerstones for Kids Introduction The Human Services Workforce Initiative (HSWI) is focused on the frontline workers serving vulnerable children and families. HSWI’s premise is that human services matter. Delivered well, they can, and do, positively impact the lives of vulnerable children and families, often at critical points in their lives.

We believe that the quality of the frontline worker influences the effectiveness of services they deliver to children and families. If workers are well-trained and supported, have access to the resources that they need, possess a reasonable workload, and are valued by their employers, it follows that they will be able to effectively perform their jobs. If, however, they are as vulnerable as the children and families that they serve, they will be ineffective in improving outcomes for children and families.

Unfortunately, all indications today are that our frontline human services workforce is struggling. In some instances poor compensation contributes to excessive turnover; in others an unreasonable workload and endless paperwork render otherwise capable staff ineffective; and keeping morale up is difficult in the human services fields. It is remarkable that so many human services professionals stick to it, year after year.

HSWI’s mission is to work with others to raise the visibility of, and sense of urgency about, workforce issues. Through a series of publications and other communications efforts we hope to

Call greater attention to workforce issues Help to describe and define the status of the human services workforce Disseminate data on current conditions Highlight best and promising practices Suggest systemic and policy actions that can make a deep, long-term

difference

In this report The After-School Corporation describes the findings from a study of a sample of 20 higher- and lower-quality after-school programs in New York City. Through statistical analysis of responses to surveys and interviews, the authors explored the organizational features, including hiring, supervision, compensation, and training, that contribute to their strong and weak program practices. A number of differences between strong and weak programs emerged from the study, which can offer guidance to program managers about staffing and other organizational practices.

Additional information on the human services workforce, and on HSWI, is available at www.cornerstones4kids.org. Cornerstones for Kids 2007

Staffing Practices of High-Quality After-School Programs

ii

Executive Summary This study examined staffing and other organizational practices that distinguish higher quality after-school programs. The study builds on TASC’s ongoing evaluation of 21st Century Community Learning Centers serving approximately 20,000 youth at 100 New York City public schools. Researchers reanalyzed program quality and attendance data collected during the 2005-06 school year to identify the ten highest- and ten lowest- performing after-school sites from this pool of evaluated programs. Once these 20 programs were identified, TASC researchers conducted additional field research at these sites to learn more about the organizational features that contribute to their strong and weak program practices, including hiring, supervision, compensation, and training. Researchers conducted 129 interviews with program staff and collected 367 youth worker surveys across these 20 programs. Those data were then analyzed to determine what, if any, relationships exist between organizational practices and program quality at these 20 participating after-school programs. Across these 20 sites, researchers found distinguishing organizational features that differentiated higher- and lower-quality programs. Specifically, we found significant differences in the ways in which higher-quality programs hire, supervise, and train frontline staff. These differences include:

• Program coordinators at higher-quality programs exercised greater autonomy in hiring decisions, including having final decision-making authority over all staff working at their site.

• Frontline staff in higher-quality programs had higher levels of education and were more likely to be students currently enrolled in college or graduate school.

• Higher-quality programs were more likely to hire staff with relevant prior work experience.

• Staff members at higher-quality programs were more likely to describe participants’ social and emotional development as goals of their after-school program.

• Higher-quality programs were more likely to utilize a team-teaching model, with two-person teams providing instruction, rather than a single staff member leading after-school activities.

• Higher-quality programs were more likely to require frontline staff to write and submit lesson plans and their supervisors were more likely to use those lesson plans as a basis for providing feedback.

• Higher-quality program staff received more training and were more likely to participate in training that addressed after-school activity content, including training on how to implement specific curricula.

• Higher-quality program staff reported a more positive staff climate with respect to their enjoyment of and commitment to working in after-school, access to technology and resources, involvement in program planning and operations, and opportunities to share ideas with other staff.

Staffing Practices of High-Quality After-School Programs

iii

Interestingly, we did not find significant differences between higher- and lower-quality programs with respect to staff compensation rates or years of experience working for their organization. These findings can offer guidance to program managers about staffing and other organizational practices that may contribute to running a higher-quality after-school program.

Staffing Practices of High-Quality After-School Programs 1

Table of Contents Study Overview 2 Site Selection 2 Data Collection 3 Analysis 4 Findings 6 Hiring Qualified After-school Staff 6 Professional Background 9 Mission 10 Relationship with Host School 12 Retention 12 Staff Roles and Satisfaction 14 Compensation and Benefits 16 Staff Supervision and Evaluation 17 Professional Development 18 Conclusion 21 Endnotes 22 Appendix A: Site Coordinator Interview Protocol 23 Appendix B: Youth Worker Survey 31


WHAT IS TASC?

TASC is an intermediary that supports community-based organizations to operate after-school programs in New York City public schools.

To ensure the success of after-school programs, previously TASC has identified the following set of core elements critical to quality:

• Programs that operate three hours a day, every day school is in session

• A full-time, paid site coordinator

• A variety of activities connected to but different from the school day, including academic support, arts, sports, and community service

• A diverse staff of teachers, artists, college students, community members, and others

• A low student-to-staff ratio (10:1 for elementary and middle schools)

• Snack or supper

• Enrollment open to all

To further enhance quality, TASC provides programs with extensive training and technical assistance, from basic principles of budgeting and staffing to easy-to-replicate curricula for specific activities.

Study Overview This study examined after-school programs affiliated with The After-School Corporation (TASC), to determine what staffing and other organizational practices distinguish the highest quality after-school programs from lower quality programs. To better understand the link between staffing practices and program quality, TASC, in collaboration with Policy Studies Associates (PSA), reanalyzed its extensive 2005-06 school-year evaluation database to:

• identify the ten highest and 10 lowest quality after-school projects from our research sample as defined by their program quality scores obtained through structured activity observations

• conduct additional field research at these sites to learn more about the agencies’ organizational features that contribute to these strong and weak program practices, including hiring, supervision, compensation, and training

• analyze these quantitative and qualitative data to determine what, if any, relationships exist between organizational practices and program quality at the twenty participating after-school projects

The twenty participating after-school programs were all hosted by a New York City public elementary or middle school and were partially funded through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) after-school funding program.

Site Selection TASC analyzed its 2005-06 21st CCLC evaluation database to identify the ten after-school programs scoring highest and the ten programs scoring lowest on program quality observation measures. Program quality measures were obtained using PSA’s “Out of School Time (OST) Observation Instrument.” As described by Yohalem and Wilson-Ahlstrom (2007), the OST observation instrument “assesses the quality of activities along five key domains including relationships, youth participation, staff skill building and mastery strategies, and activity content and structure.” Additionally, Yohalem and


Wilson-Ahlstrom found strong evidence of interrater reliability in its review of the OST Observation Instrument. The instrument calls for 15-minute observations of after-school activities for six hours over two days, for a total of approximately 10 independent observations per site. The TASC 21st CCLC evaluation database included complete observation data for 78 programs, with an overall average of 8.8 observations conducted per site for the 2005-2006 school-year. We required a minimum of 7 activity observations per site to be eligible for inclusion in this study. Eight of these programs were based in high schools and were thus excluded from participation in the study due to our focus on programs serving youth in elementary and middle grades. A selection criteria score was calculated for the remaining 70 programs based on 1) the average rating of quality items from the OST observation tool and 2) the program’s average daily attendance. Seventy-five percent of the final site selection was based on program quality scores obtained from the OST observation instrument and the remaining 25 percent was based on the program’s average daily attendance. Sites were then ranked by this final selection criteria score. The ten highest- and ten lowest-ranked programs were then selected for participation in the study. Two site replacements were made. Of our original 20 selected sites, one higher-quality program and one lower-quality program had to be replaced with sites next in line because they closed prior to or during the data collection phase of the project. Once sites were chosen for participation in the study, TASC contacted the site coordinators to enroll their programs in the study. Data Collection TASC researchers developed interview protocols for collecting in-depth information about staffing and management practices from the twenty after-school programs. Interviews with program staff were conducted during a three-day site visit made to each of our twenty participating after-school programs. Each visit was conducted by a two-person study team. We conducted 5-8 staff interviews at each site, including program coordinators and randomly selected frontline staff. The purpose of the site visits was to learn more about the organizations’ infrastructure, staffing, and management practices. The main themes in interview protocols included questions about how staff define the mission of their programs, how staff are recruited and hired, the professional and educational background of staff, compensation and benefits, supervision and evaluation, professional development, and staff roles. Six semi-structured interview protocols were created to be used during face-to-face interviews with staff members. Separate interview protocols were developed for site coordinators, activity specialists, group leaders, certified teachers, school principals, and community-based organization (CBO) supervisors. (See Appendix A for a sample protocol.) The interview protocols consisted of 14-32 open-ended questions addressing the topics listed above. Interviews with frontline staff, managers at CBOs, and school-day principals lasted 45 to 60 minutes. Interviews of site coordinators were more detailed, included 32 questions, and were designed as a two-hour interview. Roughly half of


interviews with CBO managers were conducted over the phone. All other interviews were conducted in person during our site visits. Interview protocols were piloted at a school-based summer program in August 2006. During the pilot, we interviewed six staff members over the course of two days. The interview protocols were then modified based on our experience in the pilot study. In total, 129 interviews were conducted with an average of 6.5 interviews per after-school program. Twenty of the 129 interviews were with program coordinators, one at each participating site, 90 interviews were with randomly selected frontline and professional staff, 15 were with managers at community based organizations, and four interviews were with school-day principals. In addition to staff interviews, we adapted the Forum for Youth Investment’s “Youth Worker Survey”1 to be administered to all staff at our 20 participating sites. TASC’s subcontractor, Policy Studies Associates (PSA), took the lead in administering and analyzing the Youth Worker Survey. (See Appendix B for a copy of the Youth Worker Survey administered for this study.) The survey included twenty-six questions addressing demographic information, background, roles and responsibilities, motivation to continue working in the after-school field, compensation and benefits available, professional history, professional development, and job satisfaction. In total, 438 Youth Worker Surveys were distributed, one to every listed staff member at the twenty participating programs. PSA received and analyzed data from a total of 367 staff members in 20 after-school programs, including 25 surveys of program mangers (20 site coordinators and 5 other managers), 29 surveys of professional staff, 305 surveys of frontline staff, and 8 surveys of support staff. This represents an average response rate of 84 percent; program-level response rates ranged from 61 percent to 100 percent.

Exhibit 1 Youth Worker Response Rate by Program Quality

Analysis TASC and PSA analyzed interview and survey data to identify those staffing characteristics that distinguish higher- and lower-quality after-school programs. Interviews with staff members were transcribed within Microsoft Word, using established note-taking conventions. A coding scheme was developed within qualitative data analysis

1 We adapted Forum for Youth Investments frontline youth worker survey to ensure alignment with our research objectives. However, the adapted version includes many items as they appear in the survey administered by Yohalem, Pittman, and Moore (2006).

Total StaffCompleted

SurveysResponse

RateHigh quality programs 227 180 79%Low quality programs 211 187 90%All programs 438 367 84%


software, NVivo 7.0, to electronically code interview transcripts and identify patterns in each staff member’s responses. The coding scheme mirrored the themes in our interview protocols and consisted of a hierarchal structure of 20 thematic codes. Researchers analyzed interview responses using qualitative data analysis software by reviewing responses within thematic groupings based on program quality. Where appropriate, survey analysis also examined variation in the staffing patterns of higher- and lower-quality programs based on staff role. For these analyses, program staff were classified into one of the following job categories:

■ Manager: Staff members with the primary role of supervising and/or hiring other staff members, including site coordinators

■ Professional staff: Staff members who are certified to teach or have

another relevant certification, including educational coordinators, librarians, or social workers

■ Frontline staff: Staff members with the primary role of providing direct

services and instruction, including, but not limited to, group leaders, teaching artists, and activity specialists

■ Support: Staff members with the primary or exclusive role of providing

administrative support to the after-school program, including attendance monitors or administrative assistants

The analysis of survey data was conducted by performing cross-tabulations of survey responses by program quality level (i.e. higher- vs. lower-quality programs) and obtaining chi-square statistics to determine whether the proportions of subjects falling into the response categories differed significantly from the expected proportions. All sub-sample differences cited were statistically significant at the .05 level, unless otherwise noted. Our analysis of survey data did not include support staff, primarily because there were only two respondents who were classified in this manner.


Findings Below we include a brief summary of key characteristics of our overall study population. These overall findings are followed by a more detailed discussion of differences in organizational practices found among higher- and lower-quality after-school programs. Worker Demographics

• Age and Gender: The overall study population was predominantly female (71 percent) and relatively young. Over half of our respondents (53 percent) were age 25 and under.

• Ethnicity: The survey population was predominantly African American (37 percent) or Hispanic (34 percent). Fourteen percent of respondents self-identified as White/Non-Hispanic, one percent as Asian, and the remaining 12 percent as “other” or “multiracial.”

Organizational Practices/Policies • Full-time/Part-time Employment: A large majority of those surveyed (89 percent)

worked part-time for their after-school program. Seventy-five percent worked during the school-year only.

• Roles and Responsibilities: Seventy-nine percent of respondents identified leading or assisting program activities as their primary role. Fifteen percent of respondents said that managing or directing the overall program was their primary role.

• Compensation: Ninety-five percent of surveyed staff reported they were paid an hourly wage, rather than an annual salary. The median range for hourly staff was between $11.00 and $12.99 an hour.

Workforce Status • Stability: As found in national studies of the after-school workforce, job turnover

among our study population was high. Thirty-eight percent of surveyed staff had worked for their after-school program for less than one year. Sixty-one percent of those surveyed had been at their program for two years or less.

• Job satisfaction: After-school staff in our study population reported high levels of job satisfaction. Eighty percent of surveyed staff said they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their job.

Through interviews and survey responses at our 20 study sites, a consistent picture of distinguishing organizational features emerged that set apart higher-quality after-school programs. We found significant differences in the ways in which higher-quality programs hire, supervise, and train frontline staff. The remaining findings describe those practices that differentiated higher- and lower-quality programs. Hiring Qualified After-School Staff

According to program staff lists, the 20 after-school programs in the study had an average of 18 staff members, ranging from 8 to 31 staff members per program. There were no notable differences in the number of staff members in higher-quality and lower-quality programs (average of 18 and 19 staff members, respectively). However, higher-quality


programs hired fewer professional staff members than did lower-quality programs (average of one professional staff member compared to two professional staff members per program).2 All programs had at least one staff member in a manager role.

Reflecting typical after-school staffing patterns, many of these staff were young (52 percent of survey respondents were 25 years old or younger), female (71 percent), and the majority reported that they were either Black or Hispanic/Latino (37 percent and 34 percent, respectively). At both higher- and lower-quality programs, we found that frontline staff were frequently recruited through informal channels, such as hearing about the programs and jobs through word-of-mouth. However, the amount of autonomy site coordinators had over the hiring

process varied a great deal among programs. Coordinators of higher-quality programs generally exercised greater autonomy over hiring decisions than coordinators of lower-quality programs.

Specifically, forty percent of site coordinators at lower-quality programs did not interview and/or have final decision-making authority over all staff working at their site.

Both higher-quality and lower-quality programs employed large numbers of staff members who were currently students or had not completed a four-year college education: only 25 percent of all staff members in both higher- and lower-quality programs were college graduates. Previous studies have found higher levels of education among higher-quality program staff (MARS 2005).3 As shown in Exhibit 2, more frontline staff members in higher-quality programs were current students than frontline staff members in lower-quality programs (62 percent compared with 45 percent), including a higher proportion of college and graduate students (52 percent of frontline staff in higher-quality programs compared with 32 percent in lower-quality programs). Additionally, interviews with site coordinators and other managers indicated that higher-quality programs were more likely to intentionally recruit some staff from local colleges and universities by posting job openings with local colleges and universities. The proportion

2 The Massachusetts After-School Research Study (MARS) found a positive correlation between having a higher percentage of certified teachers on staff and program quality indicators, including staff engagement, youth engagement, engaging/challenging activities, and high-quality homework time. However, the study also found that having a higher percentage of certified teachers on staff was negatively associated with the quality indicator family relations. 3 The MARS study also found positive associations between a having a higher percentage of program staff with college degrees and several program quality indicators.

“I made an expectation [this year of my staff], if they had dropped out of high school, they only had a year to earn their GED. We’re in an education institution; you have to be motivated yourself.” -Site Coordinator

“My previous executive director would fight me on promoting people he said weren’t ready; I have someone on staff now who he forced me to hire.” -Site Coordinator


of frontline staff members who were current high school students was similar in higher- and lower-quality programs (10 percent and 13 percent, respectively). Overall, as shown in Exhibit 3, more frontline staff in lower-quality programs reported that their highest level of education completed was high school or less than did staff members in higher-quality programs (29 percent compared to 41 percent). Moreover, frontline staff in higher-quality programs included more college graduates (2 year associate degree or higher) than in lower-quality programs (36 percent compared to 25 percent).

Exhibit 2

Education Status of Frontline Staff

1013

46

28

6

4

0

25

50

75

High-quality programs (n=147)Low-quality programs (n=142)

Per

cent

of s

taff

curr

ently

in s

choo

l

High School College Graduate

Exhibit 3

Educational Backgrounds of Frontline Staff 6

23

2

33

17

12

3

3

17

24

3

31

11

7

2

5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Less than High School

HS Diploma/GED

Some Tech/Vocational School

Some College

Tw o-Year College Degree

College Graduate

Some Graduate School

Graduate Degree

Percent of staff reporting highest level of education

High-quality programs (n=149) Low -quality programs (n=151)


Professional Background After-school staff brought to their work a diverse set of professional experiences. Overall, as shown in Exhibit 4, we found child care and education to be the two most common fields in which frontline staff had worked prior to their current position in their after-school programs. We found no significant differences between higher- and lower-quality programs with respect to the proportion of staff with prior experience in any one field. However, when we grouped the four fields most relevant to after-school—including education, child care, social services, and the arts—we found that higher-quality programs were more likely to hire frontline staff with prior relevant work experience. As shown in Exhibit 5, 71 percent of frontline staff at higher-quality programs had previous work experience in a related field prior to joining their current after-school program as compared to 64 percent at lower-quality programs.

Exhibit 4 Prior Work Experience of Frontline Staff

44

43

28

17

11

8

7

7

5

4

0 10 20 30 40 50

Education

Child care

Retail

Arts

Health care

Social services

Faith-based

Technology

Finance

Building trades

Percent of staff reporting prior employment experience

“For my group leaders, I expect them to have some type of curriculum development background. It doesn’t have to be their education background, just their work experience. Work experience is more important than education.”

-Site Coordinator


Exhibit 5 Prior Relevant Work Experience by Program Quality

Mission We asked staff to describe the mission or goals of their after-school programs. Staff typically identified more than one goal or mission either they personally or their organization was working to achieve. Staff responses about program mission generally fell into one of the following categories: 1) to provide academic support, including homework assistance, and other activities with the primary aim of improving school outcomes; 2) to provide enrichment and recreational opportunities, for example, activities that youth “would not be exposed to otherwise” or activities that are not offered during the school day, most often sports, dance or art related activities; 3) to provide a safe haven or to keep kids off the street and supervised during after-school hours; 4) to support development, including the social and emotional development of the child, often described as providing role models, developing positive self-esteem, or promoting strategies for conflict resolution, and/or promoting respect for diversity; or 5) to support parents, primarily to provide working parents childcare during the after-school hours.

7164

0

25

50

75

100

High-quality programs (n=153)Low-quality programs (n=152)

Perc

ent o

f fro

ntlin

e st

aff w

ithpr

ior r

elev

ant e

xper

ienc

e


Exhibit 6 How Staff Define Program Mission

54

54

31

28

13

0 25 50 75

Academic Support

Enrichment/Recreation

Safe Haven

Social/EmotionalDevelopment

Support Parents

Percent of staff reporting mission type*

* Note: Interviewees often reported more than one mission they personally or their program was trying to achieve; therefore, the percentages exceed 100 percent. As seen in Exhibit 6, overall the most frequently identified program goals were 1) to provide academic support and 2) to provide enrichment and recreational opportunities for youth. However, staff from higher-quality programs were more likely than staff from lower-quality programs to describe participants’ social and emotional development as a goal of their program. Higher-quality program staff accounted for 71 percent of the instances in which social or emotional development of youth was described as a goal of their after-school program.

“Well my individual goal is to try to enhance the children’s minds. It’s a struggle out there….I believe we all want to be big brothers and sisters to these kids. Whether they have brothers who don’t pay attention to them, or don’t have them....It’s just to make sure that they focus right, that their goals are right. …They’re looking for some type of affection.”

- Frontline worker

“I know the specific goal for my department is getting kids sure with themselves, because many have self-esteem issues, [and participating in after- school is a] form of escaping issues they have at home, or if they’re not popular, or they’re overweight to help them improve their self-esteem.”

– Frontline worker


Relationship with Host School After-school program staff often shared some characteristics of both the communities and the host schools where their programs took place. All programs hired at least one staff member who also worked for the program’s host school. However, based on interview data, higher-quality program staff were more likely to discuss specific connections to their host schools, which included employment in the day-school (as paraprofessionals, administrative staff, or certified teachers) or being parents of children who attended the host school. Additionally, higher-quality program staff were more likely to discuss positive interactions with day-school staff including sharing ideas with day-school staff (most often certified teachers and principals) about instructional strategies or to discuss the progress of specific after-school participants. Seventy-six percent of staff from higher-quality programs reported positive connections to their host school. In contrast, only 48 percent of lower-quality program staff reported a strong connection to their program’s host school or positive interactions with day-school staff. Furthermore, 52 percent of staff at lower-quality programs specifically mentioned a disconnect between school and after-school program. Examples of that disconnect included having no or extremely limited interaction with day-school staff and specific tensions between the day-school and after-school staff. For instance, one certified teacher who worked in a lower-quality program said, “I try not to mix the day school with my after-school. I try to keep it separate.” Higher-quality programs were also more likely to report deliberately recruiting at least some staff members from the communities or neighborhoods where the programs are located.

Staff Retention Across all programs, we found high levels of staff turnover. Overall, 38 percent of staff at participating sites indicated that they had less than one year of experience at their after-school program. Program staff members in lower-quality programs were slightly more likely to report having at least two years of experience working with youth and in their after-school program than were staff members in higher-quality programs. As shown in Exhibit 7, 40 percent of staff in lower-quality programs had been in their current position for at least two years, as

“The staff is alright; everyone gets along; [we’re] like one big family, [but] sometimes you gotta be the one to break out of that family. People get too comfortable with their jobs; they don’t wanna leave. They always complain, but they don’t put their resume [out there to find a new job.]” -Frontline worker

“…we like a mix; we like our staff to reflect neighborhood and schools, but also we hope to expose kids to different things….The high school students might go to school in the community, or young people who live in the community; the family liaison is often from the community, which is helpful.” – Site Coordinator


had 31 percent of staff in higher-quality programs. However, these differences were not statistically significant. We did find a significant difference in the proportion of frontline staff who had at least five years of experience working in their after-school program. Frontline staff at lower-quality programs were slightly more likely than staff at higher-quality programs to have at least five years of experience working in their program (11 percent versus five percent).

Exhibit 7 Program Staff Experience Working with Youth

Staff most frequently reported the following as the most significant factor impacting their

decision to continue working in the program: the sense that their job is making a difference (36 percent), pay rates (24 percent), and the compatibility of personal interests and career opportunities (16 percent). There were no

significant differences based on program quality.

Staff were also asked to report the three factors that they believed would most help advance youth work as a profession. As shown in Exhibit 8, staff most frequently highlighted raising overall compensation and wages, increased program resources, public recognition of the field, and better professional development opportunities as

“You can’t just look at it as a job; you have to have a love for it.” -Activity specialist

“I’m working with lives. I’m working with human beings. It’s a tremendous undertaking. If you see it as just your job then you are not going to be successful. “ -Group leader

3134

71

4043

76

0

25

50

75

100

In current position In this after-school program In the field of youth work

Percent of staff reporting 2 or more years experience

High-quality programs (n=130) Low -quality programs (n=150)


significant factors. There were no differences in the factors selected by staff in higher-quality programs compared to lower-quality programs.

Exhibit 8

Program Staff Reports of Factors to Advance Youth Work

4

2

4

9

9

8

4

7

8

6

9

12

11

13

17

12

7

5

7

10

11

15

10

8

15

3

31

18

12

9

0 20 40 60 80

Improvedmanagement/supervision

Youth w orker associations

Required minimumqualif ications/credentials

Improved w orkplaceconditions/environments

Clear pathw ays for careeradvancement

Specialized higher educationopportunities

Public recognition of the f ield

More/better professionaldevelopment opportunities

Increased program resources

Raising overallcompensation/w ages

Percent of staff reporting the factor

Most signif icant (n=160) 2nd most signif icant factor (n=158) 3rd most signif icant factor (n=173)

Staff Roles and Satisfaction Across the 20 programs in the study, nearly all site coordinators were paid for full-time work (17 of 19 reporting coordinators) and most were also employed year-round (15 of 19).4

Few other program staff were employed full time. Four of the six other program managers, typically assistant site coordinators, who completed the survey reported that they were employed part-time and during the school year only. All professional and support staff responding to the survey were part-time employees, as were 93 percent of responding frontline staff. Similarly, only 20 percent of frontline staff and 15 percent of professional staff were employed year-round. Thirty-eight percent of all program staff reported having a second job. There were no significant differences on these measures of employment status by program quality.

4 We define full-time employment as working 30 hours per week or more.


As found in other studies (e.g., Fusco 2003) titles and job responsibilities of staff in after-school programs vary greatly. However, higher-quality programs were more likely to

utilize a team-teaching model—with two-person teams providing instruction—rather than a model using a single staff member to lead after-school activities. Additionally, higher-quality programs were more likely to have more

than one level of frontline staff. Typical examples include teams consisting of a lead and assistant group leader or senior and junior counselors. Finally, higher-quality programs were also more likely than lower-quality programs to have a dedicated parent coordinator on staff. The responsibilities of the parent coordinator varied from program to program, but most often they served as a liaison to parents to relay pertinent information about the after-school program and its participants and to engage parent participation in after-school related events, such as culminating performances. Overall, 34 percent of all staff reported that they were very satisfied with their job, and an additional 46 percent reported that they were satisfied. Only three percent of staff reported being dissatisfied with their jobs. There were no significant differences in satisfaction with the benefits package received: across both higher-quality and lower-quality programs, 41 percent of staff members reported that they were dissatisfied with their benefits package. The Youth Worker Survey also asked staff to respond to statements about their experiences with various aspects of working in the after-school program. Overall, staff members expressed a high degree of satisfaction with their roles; there were some significant differences by program quality.

• Frontline staff and managers at higher-quality were more likely to report that they

enjoyed their work (65 percent versus 54 percent). • Frontline staff and managers at lower-quality programs were more likely to report

that they had insufficient access to technology, such as computers and the internet (11 percent versus 3 percent).

• Frontline staff and managers at higher-quality programs were more likely to report that fellow staff members were committed to their work.

• Frontline staff and managers at higher-quality programs were more likely to report that staff were involved in important decisions about program operations and design (34 percent versus 26 percent).

• Frontline staff and managers at higher-quality programs were more likely to report that they had opportunities to share ideas with other staff.

Reflecting their overall high satisfaction, staff in higher-quality and lower-quality programs both reported strong levels of intent to continue working in the after-school program. Forty-six percent of staff reported that they planned to continue work in the program for four or more years; only 25 percent intended to stay in their job for one year or less.

“We encourage our group leaders to push our assistant group leaders to become group leaders, because we want our group leaders to move on and grow.” -Assistant Site Coordinator


Compensation and Benefits Four of 10 site coordinators in lower-quality programs reported being paid an hourly wage, as did three of eight reporting coordinators of higher-quality programs. Of these, all three coordinators of higher-quality programs reported that their hourly wage was at least $25 per hour. In comparison, three of the coordinators of lower-quality programs reported that their hourly wage was between $15 and $20.99 per hour, and the fourth reported an hourly wage between $21 and $24.99 per hour. Among the site coordinators who reported being paid an annual salary, three coordinators of lower-quality programs reported being paid at least $50,000 per year. One coordinator of a higher-quality program reported being paid that amount per year. Across all programs, the median wage for frontline staff was $11-$13 an hour. This compensation rate was slightly higher than what has typically been found in other studies (Yohalem, Pittman, Moore 2006; Barton-Villagrana and Becker Mouhcine 2006; Halpern 1999). There were no notable differences in the wages earned by staff members in higher-quality and lower-quality programs. However, staff at lower-quality programs were more likely to report conflict over issues of compensation. For example, some staff at lower-quality programs reported resentfulness based on their perception that more senior and better-trained staff were paid the same rates as newly-hired staff. Other staff at lower-quality programs reported conflict over compensation because they felt there was too much variation in compensation among staff members and these rates were set arbitrarily.

There were no significant differences in the benefits offered to site coordinators of higher-quality and lower-quality programs. Benefits most frequently reported by site coordinators included paid vacation (15 of 17 coordinators), paid holidays (14 of 17), paid sick leave (13 of 17), and medical insurance (13 of 17). Few other staff members received benefits as

part of their employment, reflecting their part-time employment status. However, a significantly higher percentage of frontline staff in higher-quality programs reported receiving training or education stipends than did frontline staff in lower-quality programs (25 percent compared to 13 percent).

“I felt like I’ve been here since 2005 and people have come here with no experience and they get paid the same [as me]. I’ve been through all this training and that’s more [training] than the people that are just getting here [who are getting paid the same as me].”

-Frontline worker

“The only thing I have a big issue with is comp time. We work a lot of hours and we don’t get paid overtime….I think we should get paid for overtime, or we should have some kind of comp time, like more vacation time over the summer.”

-Site Coordinator


Exhibit 9 Compensation Rates for Frontline Program Staff

Staff Supervision and Evaluation We found no significant difference in the frequency of on-site supervision between higher-quality and lower-quality sites. Across all sites, 29 percent of staff reported receiving feedback from their supervisor at least once a week, and 55 percent reported participating in program staff meetings at least once a week. There were, however, some differences in how higher- and lower-quality programs implemented staff meetings. Higher-quality programs were more likely to require all staff to attend regularly scheduled staff meetings, as opposed to requiring only staff with certain roles to participate (60 percent of higher-quality programs required all staff to attend staff meeting). Higher-quality programs were more likely to ensure that even those part-time staff who worked two or three days a week participated in staff meetings. Moreover, higher-quality programs were more likely to use staff meetings as an opportunity to share ideas. In interviews, 70 percent of higher-quality program staff indicated that one function of staff meetings was to provide an open forum for staff to share ideas and problems with one another. Staff at lower-quality programs were more likely to describe staff meetings as an opportunity to make announcements. Higher-quality programs were more likely to systematically require frontline staff to write and submit lesson plans, and higher-quality program supervisors were more likely to use those lesson plans as an opportunity to provide feedback. Eighty percent of higher-quality, as opposed to 30 percent of lower-quality programs required staff members to

4

24

21

14

7

24

1

2

1

2

0 10 20 30 40

Less than $7 per hour

$7-$9 per hour

$9-$10 per hour

$11-$12 per hour

$13-$14 per hour

$15-$20 per hour

$21-$24 per hour

$25-$30 per hour

$31 per hour and higher

Annual Salary

Percent of staff reporting hourly wage


regularly submit lesson plans that were then reviewed by a site coordinator, an assistant site coordinator, or an educational coordinator. Finally, higher-quality programs were twice as likely to share supervisory responsibility among multiple staff. Eighty percent of site coordinators at higher-quality programs shared the responsibility of managing or supervising frontline staff, most often with an assistant site coordinator. Another way supervisors support and monitor staff is through evaluation of staff performance. While all programs spoke of some method for evaluating staff, higher-quality programs were more likely to use more than one strategy. Common staff evaluation strategies included: one-on-one staff performance reviews, internal quality assurance evaluations, and probation periods for new hires. Professional Development As found in other studies, after-school workers participate in training fairly regularly; however, less is known about the impact of the specific types of training staff receive (Yohalem, Pittman and Moore 2006; Barton-Villagrana and Becker Mouhcine 2006; Dennehy 2006). In general, across all programs staff members reported high levels of participation in professional development activities. However, higher-quality program staff received more training and participated in training on a wider variety of topics than staff from lower-quality programs. For instance, higher-quality programs were more likely to purchase TASC-sponsored professional development. Higher-quality programs participated in an average of 18 TASC-sponsored trainings during the 2006-07 school year as compared to an average of 12.8 trainings attended by lower-quality programs.5 Although we did not collect comprehensive budget information from each program, these participation rates would seem to indicate that higher-quality programs allocate more funds for professional development activities. Trainings described by program staff during our interviews fell into one of the following categories: 1) academic support, which included training in homework help, tutoring, math, science, or other activities with the primary purpose to support academic achievement; 2) enrichment, which included performing and visual arts; 3) health and safety, which included topics such as CPR, child abuse and/or First Aid; 4) classroom dynamics, which included things like conflict resolution and behavior management; 5) curriculum-based, which included trainings on specific curricula, such as KidzLit, 5 These data pertain to programs that receive direct-funding from TASC and are thus eligible to participate in TASC-sponsored professional development.

“At the beginning, when I started, I wasn’t sure about the lesson plans, but they [other staff] helped with that, so now I’m much more comfortable…the educational coordinator, she can help me…she will write a comment and make little appointments [with me] when she can see you [to provide feedback on our lesson plans].” -Frontline worker


KidzMath, and Junior Achievement; 6) recreation, which included sports and games; and 7) other, which included trainings on things such as managing budgets or peer conferences. Most staff, regardless of program quality, received training on health and safety topics, with CPR and First Aid as the most common training topics reported in interviews. Overall, the second most commonly attended training area by frontline staff was classroom dynamics. Staff from lower- and higher-quality programs participated in training on health and safety and classroom dynamics in roughly equal numbers. As seen in Figure 10, higher-quality program staff were much more likely than staff from lower-quality programs to indicate that they participated in training on how best to provide academic support to youth participants. Furthermore, higher-quality program staff were much more likely to report receiving training on how to implement a specific curriculum. Throughout our interviews, regardless of program quality, respondents did not connect more training to increased compensation rates.

Exhibit 10 Training Opportunities for After-school Program Staff

* Percentages reflect the proportion of staff members who explicitly reported participating in training on these topics during their interviews. Given the challenge of recalling every training one has attended, the actual number of staff who participated in training on these topics is undoubtedly higher than these percentages reflect.

22

18

37

28

16

18

15

3

13

38

27

3

19

13

0 10 20 30 40 50

Academic support

Enrichment

Health & safety

Classroom dynamics

Curriculum training

Recreation

Other

Percent of staff participating in training on topic*

High-quality programs Low -quality programs

“I’m doing KidzLit now. I’m gonna start advanced KidzLit [training soon]. Last school term I did First Aid, CPR ….I did one on hip-hop evolution. It was so cool! They had rapping, trying to be a beat box….I [also] went to Science Plus [training].” -Frontline worker


There were no significant differences in the ways in which the after-school program supported staff participation in professional development opportunities between higher-quality and lower-quality programs. Across all programs, 60 percent of staff reported that the program paid for training fees; 50 percent said that the program made staff members aware of training opportunities; and 19 percent of staff reported that the program formally recognized and rewarded participation in professional development.


Conclusion What have we learned from this in-depth study of the organizational policies and practices of a wide-ranging cross-section of after-school programs? Most importantly, we have learned that there may be a connection between the professional and educational qualifications of frontline after-school workers, as well as the ways in which they are trained and supervised, and the quality of the programs they serve. Across our study of 20 after-school programs, we found several distinguishing organizational features that differentiated higher- from lower-quality after-school programs. Those differences include:

• Program coordinators who exercise greater levels of autonomy in recruiting and hiring frontline staff

• A more qualified frontline staff with higher levels of prior education and more relevant prior work experience in fields, including education, child care, social services, and the arts

• Staff who articulate their professional goals in terms of supporting participants’ social and emotional development

• A significant connection to the program’s host school, often manifesting in program staff who are also employed by the day-school (e.g., paraprofessionals, administrative staff, certified teachers) or are parents of children who attend the host school

• Utilization of a team-teaching model, with two-person teams providing instruction, rather than a single staff member leading after-school activities

• A requirement that frontline staff write and submit lesson plans and supervisors who use those lesson plans as a basis for providing feedback

• Participation in training that directly addresses after-school activity content, including training on how to implement specific curricula

• A positive staff climate with staff reporting high levels of enjoyment of and commitment to working in after-school, access to technology and resources, involvement in program planning and operations, and opportunities to share ideas with other staff.


References Barton-Villagrana, H. & Becker-Mouhcine, J. (September 2006). Illinois After-School Partnership Workforce Survey. Chicago, IL: Illinois Center for Violence Prevention. Dennehy, J., Gannet, E. & Robbins, R. (2006). “Setting the Stage for a Youth Development Associate Credential.” Houston, TX: Cornerstones for Kids. Fusco, D. (2003). “A Landscape Study of Youth Workers in Out-of-School Time. Unpublished paper. New York, York: College of the City University of New York, CUNY Workforce Development Initiative. Halpern, R. (Fall1999). “After-School Programs for Low-Income Kids: Promise and Challenges. The Future of Children, 9(2): 81-95. Massachusetts After-School Research Study (MARS). (2005). Pathways to Success for Youth: What Count in After-School. Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time and Arlington, MA:Intercultural Center for Research in Education. National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (June 2006). Finding Our Strength: Boston’s Youth Worker Survey.Technical Report. Cambridge, MA: Wellesley College. Yohalem, N., Wilson-Ahlstrom, A., with Fischer, S., & Shinn, M. (2007, March). Measuring Youth Program Quality: A Guide to Assessment Tools. Washington, D.C.: The Forum for Youth Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc. Yohalem, N., Pittman, K. & Moore, D. (2006). Growing the Next Generation of Youth Professionals: Workforce Opportunities and Challenges: A Report of the Next Generation Youth Work Coalition. Houston, TX: Cornerstones for Kids.


Appendix A Site Coordinator Interview Protocol


Site Coordinator Interview Protocol

Mission

1) Can you describe what you see as the after-school program’s mission? What are the program’s goals?

a. Does your site have a mission statement? Who wrote the mission statement? [IF WRITTEN BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN SITE COORDINATOR: Does it reflect your views about the program?]

b. How are you trying to accomplish this goal or mission?

2) Why should kids come to this program? What’s in it for them? Background and Role of Site-Coordinator

3) Can you tell me a little about your own background?

a. What is your educational background? b. What was your experience prior to joining the staff here, including

experience with education/teaching or youth development? c. What are your professional aspirations for the future? Do you think your

current position will help you accomplish your professional goals? 4) How did you become aware of the site coordinator position and this after-school

program?

5) When did you start working here? When did you become a site coordinator at this site? Did you hold another position with the after school problem prior to becoming site coordinator?

6) How would you describe your role here?

a. What does a typical work week look like for you? b. What kinds of things do you typically do in the hours before the after-

school hours begin? Team meetings, data entry, meeting with school/CBO staff?

NOTE: Obtain a completed copy of the “staff listing chart” and activities schedule prior to the interview as several questions refer to these documents. Start by introducing yourself. We are undergoing a study to better understand the organizational features and practices at your after-school site. We will not be identifying any of the individuals we speak with by name, and your answers will remain confidential. Neither you nor your organization will be named in any of our reports. Please remind the site coordinator that the interview will take 2 hours.


c. How do you typically spend the time when programming is actually in session (observing programming, managing behavior, meeting with staff or parents, data entry, etc.)?

d. Do you conduct/lead any training or coach any staff? e. Do you play a role in managing the relationships with the CBO/school? f. Does your role involve interaction with parents? If yes, to what degree?

Is there a Parent Coordinator for your site? g. Do you manage the budget for your program site(s)? If no, who does? IF

YES, would you say that you spend over a quarter of your overall time managing the budget for your site? [IF THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON MANAGING THE SITE’S BUDGET EXCEEDS ROUGHLY 25% OF THEIR OVERALL TIME OR IF THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE BUDGET CONTINUE WITH THE FOLLOWING SUB-QUESTIONS]

i. What are the program’s main funding sources and how are those allocated?

ii. What percentage of the budget is allocated to training or technical assistance (i.e., certain dollar amount per staff member)?

iii. What percentage of the budget is allocated for staff compensation? Has that changed over time? Have the changes in the amount of money allocated for compensation affected staffing?

iv. If you had 25% more money, what would you do with that money? h. Are you involved in locating resources or locating curriculum for the

program? i. Are you involved in coordinating with day school staff and administrators?

Which specific day-school staff do you or your staff work with [PROBE principal, assistant principal, janitorial staff, instructional specialists]?

i. What are the key relationships between your staff and the regular school day staff? How do you go about maintaining these relationships?

j. Do you interact with students (both after-school participants and non-participants) during the regular school day?

Activities/Governance 7) Can you briefly walk me through your activities schedule? [USE THE WEEKLY

ACTIVITY SCHEDULE TO PROBE for the range of activities, the frequency of each, content, students served, connection to the school day, and connection to the program goals]

a. First of all, does the type or the focus of the activities offered at the

program vary depending on the time of the year? b. Who determines what activities are offered by the program? Can you

describe the process for how activities are selected? c. Are there activities that were once offered that are no longer offered?

Can you describe the process by which it is decided that activities will no longer be offered?

d. How often do you implement new activities (e.g., every ten weeks, by semester, by program cycle)? [PROBE about students’ input of what activities are offered, staff input into activities, and whether changes are targeted to specific age groups]


e. How are decisions about what type of programming to provide made? f. How does your affiliation with the CBO shape what happens in this

program?

8) Do you currently use any type(s) of formal curriculum? If yes, whose decision was it to use this curriculum? [PROBE staff providers, curriculum publishers (e.g., in-house or purchased), content, students served, connection to program goals, and possible connections to the regular school day curriculum]

9) What does the after-school staff, yourself included, do to develop strong ties

between the school day curriculum and/or the school day staff and the after-school program?

10) Let’s talk about program policies. Do you have a policy for:

a. Managing youth behavior? If yes, how is this policy communicated to staff? How is this policy enforced?

b. Staff planning for activities, including if there is a policy surrounding lesson plans - are staff required to write lesson plans for any of their activities? If yes, how is this requirement communicated to staff? How is this policy enforced?

c. Compensation rates or ranges for various staffing positions? d. Staff evaluation? If yes, how is this policy communicated to staff? How is

this policy enforced? e. Encourage staff retention or staff referrals?

Staffing/Recruitment

11) What do you see as the 3 most important factors in promoting high quality after-

school staff? [Compensation, training, support, background, growth potential, come from the community, education, experience with kids, etc.]

12) Do you have to adhere to any staffing requirements based on

a. The partnership with your CBO? b. Any funding you receive?

13) What kinds of background and experience are you looking for in group

leaders/teachers? a. Educational background? b. Work experience? c. Personality, personal characteristics? d. Is it important that group leader come from this community? If YES, what

kind of connection to the community are you looking for? e. What other kinds of qualities?

Retention

14) Can you walk me through the different types of staff (and numbers of each) you have at your site (including assistant site directors, group leaders, certified teachers, activity specialists, volunteers, education coordinators, or other staff)? [NOTE: Use the list of staff names and titles as well as a copy of the activities schedule, obtained prior to the interview and review those and discuss here]


a. How has your staffing changed over the past year? Have you added new

staff members? Have any staff members left? Can you describe those changes to me? Do you have a sense if the staff changes in the past year are fairly typical or unique? What factors do you think lead to these changes?

b. Which of your staff (referred to staff list) are new this year? [Probe for the coordinator to identify who on the staff list are new hires this year and walk through question #15 separately for each new staff member the site coordinator identifies]

15) Were you personally involved with the hiring of any new staff in this past year?

IF YES, can you please describe that process and your role in it? a. Were you involved in advertising for this position (either formally like

writing up a job description or informally like spreading the word through personal or professional networks)?

b. Were you involved in the interviewing process of candidates? Can you describe the interviewing process to me? How many interviews did potential candidates undergo and with whom? Does the CBO Supervisor have a role in the hiring process at all? Do you have to obtain approval from anyone when hiring new staff (if yes, who)?

c. What was the time frame for hiring for this position? Is this time frame typical?

16) Do you feel like the level of staff turnover this year was low, moderate, or high?

a. IF LOW: How do you maintain a low level of staff turnover? b. IF MODERATE or HIGH: What do you think could be done to lower the

level of staff turnover?

17) Were there any new positions created at your site this year? [PROBE, new group leader position because expanded to serve more youth, creation of new position based on administration needs, etc]. Were there any positions that you had last year that were no longer positions at the site this year? [PROBE: Getting rid of a position altogether, potentially due to budget constraints, etc.]

18) Do you have any staff that are not new staff this year, but that changed into new

positions this year? [Probe: changed the grade level they worked with, were promoted to a higher level position, etc.]

Supervision/Monitoring

19) Who is your supervisor?

a. How do you communicate? Via phone, email, etc? How frequently do you communicate with your supervisor?

b. Do you meet regularly with your supervisor? How often? For what purpose?

c. How often do you meet with your supervisor one-on-one? How often do you meet with your supervisor as part of a team (with other staff present)?

d. What support does your supervisor provide for you? Do you feel your work is acknowledged or appreciated? What resources do you feel are


available to you to support you in your job? Are there additional resources you would like to see?

e. How would you describe your supervisor’s approach to supervising you? For example, is he/she active in every decision you make, or do you tend to make many decisions on your own?

f. Do you receive feedback or a formal evaluation regarding your performance? How do you feel about this process?

20) Now can we talk about the staff you supervise? What would be your ideal

relationship with your staff (formal or informal, active or more hands off, etc)? How would you describe your approach to supervising staff?

a. How often do you have one-on-one meetings with individual staff and for what purposes? In a typical month, how much time do you spend one-on-one with individual staff?

b. How often does the staff meet as a group during the program cycle? What do you try to accomplish during staff meetings?

c. How often do you have meetings with other staff, for example, have meetings with other site coordinators, and for what purpose?

d. Can you describe what might be covered in a typical all staff meeting? 21) How do you evaluate staff performance?

a. How do you feel about the process by which your staff is evaluated? b. Do you personally observe programming in action?

i. If yes, how often? ii. When you observe programming, what are you looking for? iii. When you observe programming, do you use a particular

observation tool? iv. How do you decide who and when to observe individual staff? v. Do you provide feedback about what you saw to staff? Verbally or

in writing? What is the timeline for providing feedback for what you saw?

Compensation

22) How much are you paid (hourly, weekly, salary)?

a. How many hours would you say you typically work a week? b. Has what you get paid changed since you were first hired? If so, how

often has your pay changed? Were pay increases ever a result of trainings you received?

c. Do you feel you are paid adequately for what you do? d. Do you feel adequate raises are available to you?

23) Are there any non-monetary benefits to your job? Do you receive any additional

incentives or benefits? (PROBE: health, vacation, retirement, tuition reimbursement, college credit)?

a. [IF YES]: Do you feel the benefits adequately meet your needs? b. Do you receive any non-monetary incentives for attending trainings?

24) Do you feel that job promotions are available to you? What types? Do you see

this job as a stepping stone to some other job/career?


25) Do you see yourself working in the after-school field for the foreseeable future? a. [IF YES]: Why? What are your most important reasons for wanting to

continue this work? b. [IF NO] Why? What are the specific reasons why you do not see yourself

staying in this field? What changes, if any, would make you reconsider? [PROBE FOR FOLLOWING FACTORS: pay, benefits, professional growth, stress, support, career stability)

Training

26) Can you tell me about the trainings that have been provided to you? a. What trainings did you receive before this year? Who provided the

training and what did it consist of? b. What trainings have you received once programming began this year?

Who provided the training and what did it consist of? c. What areas would you like to receive additional training on?

27) Describe a specific training that you attended that you think went particularly well:

a. Who was present for the training? b. Where did it take place? c. How long did the training last? d. What made this particular training effective for you? e. What could have made the training even more effective for you?

28) Describe a specific training that you attended that you think did NOT go particularly well:

a. Who was present for the training? b. Where did it take place? c. How long did the training last? d. What made this particular training ineffective for you? e. What could have made the training better for you?

29) What would you say are some needs you would like fulfilled? a. Have you gotten any support in meeting your needs? b. How do you think training could address those needs?

30) Do you provide/require an orientation for new staff? Please describe the orientation.

a. Does that staff participate in any kind of group-planning process before or at the start of the program cycle?

31) Do you train any other staff yourself?

a. If yes, what types of training do you personally provide to staff and to which staff do you provide this training?

b. What resources or tools do you utilize in the trainings you lead? c. How was new staff trained prior to first leading activities? Who provided

the training and what did it consist of? d. What kinds of training were offered to returning staff before programming

resumed this year? Who provided the training and what did it consist of?


e. How do you decide which staff receive which types of training and how often different staff receive training? What kind of support do you have to put towards this effort?

f. How do you support staff once they are in the job? g. Do you provide any coaching to staff? Do staff receive coaching from

anyone else? i. Describe the coaching process? How do you decide which staff

members receive coaching and by whom?


Appendix B Youth Worker Survey


Study of After-School Staff Practices Program Staff Survey

Fall 2006 Dear Staff Member: Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. As part of a study of after-school staffing practices, The After-School Corporation (TASC) and Policy Studies Associates (PSA) are surveying program staff. The survey is designed to capture information about your experience as an after-school staff member. To protect your privacy, your responses to this survey are confidential. The study will not report findings for individual staff members or for specific after-school programs. When you have completed the survey, please seal it in the envelope provided and return it to the program office. Thank you for your help!


Study of After-School Staff Practices Program Staff Survey

Fall 2006

1. What is your employment status in this after-school program? (Circle ONE.)

a. Full-time—paid (30 hours per week or more) b. Full-time—volunteer (30 hours per week or more)

c. Part-time—paid (less than 30 hours per week) d. Part-time—volunteer (less than 30 hours per week)

2. When are you employed by this program? (Circle ONE.) a. Year-round b. Summer only c. School-year only d. Other seasonal (i.e., fall, winter, spring) 3. The following is a list of possible roles you may play in your program. For each, please check whether it is

a primary role, secondary role, or not applicable (not something you do at your job). (Check ONE IN EACH ROW.)

Primary Secondary N/A

a. Assist with program activities

b. Lead program activities

c. Plan program activities

d. Manage or direct overall program

e. Community outreach/collaboration

f. Parent/family outreach

g. Individual support/counseling/mentoring of youth

h. Behavior management/safety

i. Office/clerical support

j. Administrative paperwork (e.g., data tracking, accounting)

k. Volunteer coordination

l. Supervise staff or volunteers

m. Recruit and hire staff

n. Program evaluation


4. What hourly wage do you earn for your work in this after-school program? (Circle ONE.)

a. Less than $7 per hour b. Between $7 and $8.99 per hour c. Between $9 and $10.99 per hour d. Between $11 and $12.99 per hour e. Between $13 and $14.99 per hour f. Between $15 and $20.99 per hour g. Between $21 and $24.99 per hour h. Between $25 and $30.99 per hour i. $31 per hour or higher j. Annual salary/stipend (Specify): $ _______________ per year

5. How long have you been working…? (Check ONE in EACH COLUMN.)

In your current position In this after-school program In the field of youth work

a. 0 to 1 year (this is my first year)

b. 1 to 2 years

c. 2 to 3 years

d. 3 to 4 years

e. 5 years or more

6. Looking ahead, how long do think you will continue to work in this program? (Circle ONE.) a. Less than 1 year b. 1 year c. 2 years d. 3 years e. 4 or more years 7. What factors most impact your decision whether or not to remain in this program? (Rank the top THREE

factors.) _____ a. Pay rates _____ b. Quality of benefits _____ c. Compatibility of personal interests and career opportunities _____ d. Opportunities for professional growth/promotion _____ e. Influence over program direction _____ f. Stress levels associated with the work _____ g. Quality of supervision/support _____ h. Career stability _____ i. Opportunities to collaborate with other youth workers _____ j. Sense that my job is making a difference _____ k. Other (Specify_________________________________)


8. Do you currently have a second job outside of this one? (Circle ONE.)

a. No b. Yes

9. What benefits do you receive in your position? (Circle ALL that apply.) a. Medical insurance b. Retirement c. Training/education stipend d. Paid vacation e. Paid sick leave f. Paid holidays g. Overtime h. Bonuses/incentive pay i. Reduced cost/free child care j. Maternity/paternity leave k. No benefits 10. How satisfied are you with the benefits package you currently receive? (Circle ONE.) a. Very satisfied b. Satisfied c. Somewhat satisfied d. Dissatisfied e. Very dissatisfied 11. Overall, how satisfied are you with your job? (Circle ONE.) a. Very satisfied b. Satisfied c. Somewhat satisfied d. Dissatisfied e. Very dissatisfied 12. In your opinion, what factors do you think would most help advance youth work as a profession? (Rank the

top THREE factors.) _____ a. Raising overall compensation/wages _____ b. Increased program resources _____ c. More/better professional development opportunities _____ d. Specialized higher education opportunities _____ e. Clear pathways for career advancement _____ f. Improved workplace conditions/work environments _____ g. Improved management/supervision _____ h. Required minimum qualifications or credentials _____ i. Youth worker associations _____ j. Public recognition of the field _____ k. Other (Specify_________________________________)

13. For each statement, please circle the response that best describes your experience at this program. (Check ONE in each row.)


Strongly

agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

a. I enjoy working here

b. I find the work here rewarding

c. I have access to the materials I need to do a good job

d. I have sufficient access to technology, such as computers and the Internet

e. I get the support and feedback I need from my supervisor(s)

f. I have access to the training I need to do a good job

g. Staff members are committed to their work

h. Staff members support each other and work as a team

i. Staff are involved in important decisions about program operations and design

j. I have enough planning time

k. I have enough opportunities to share ideas with other staff

l. I have opportunities for advancement within this program

14. Are you paid for time spent planning activities/programs? (Circle ONE.)

a. No b. Yes c. Some of the time I spend planning is paid for, some is not

15. Do you share written activity or lesson plans with your supervisor or other program staff? (Circle ONE.)

a. I do not share activity plans b. I occasionally share activity plans c. I share activity plans on a regular basis d. Not applicable—I do not lead program activities

16. How often do you get individual feedback from your supervisor(s)? Please consider both formal and

informal feedback. (Circle ONE.)

a. At least once a week b. 2-3 times a month c. Once a month d. 1-2 times a semester e. Less than 1-2 times a semester f. Never


17. How often do you participate in staff meetings for this after-school program? (Circle ONE.)

a. At least once a week b. 2-3 times a month c. Once a month d. 1-2 times a semester e. Less than 1-2 times a semester f. Never

18. Do you participate in trainings, workshops, conferences, or certification programs as part of your role in this

program? (Circle ONE.)

a. No b. Yes—my participation in training is optional c. Yes—the program requires that I participate in some training Minimum number of hours of training required per year: __________

19. How does this program support your participation in trainings, workshops, conferences, and certification

programs? (Circle ALL that apply.)

a. Program provides release time b. Program pays training fees c. Program makes staff members aware of opportunities d. Program formally recognizes/rewards participation e. Program does not actively support participation f. I don’t know

20. Which fields have you worked in prior to your current position? (Circle ALL that apply.)

a. Child care b. Education c. Social services d. Faith-based e. Health care f. Arts g. Finance h. Retail/services i. Technology j. Building trades k. Other (specify:__________________________________) l. None

21. Are you currently a student? (Circle ONE.)

a. No b. I am a high school student c. I am a college student d. I am a graduate student e. I am another type of student


22. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Circle ONE.)

a. Less than high school diploma b. High school diploma or GED c. Some technical or vocational school d. Some college d. Two-year college degree e. College graduate f. Some graduate or professional school g. Graduate or professional school degree h. Other (Specify:_____________________)

23. Are you certified to teach? (Circle ONE.)

a. No b. Yes

24. Which best describes your race or ethnicity? (Circle ONE.) a. Black (Not Hispanic) b. Hispanic/Latino c. Asian or Pacific Islander d. Native American or Alaskan Native e. White (Not Hispanic) f. Multiracial f. Other 25. Are you… (Circle ONE.)

a. Female

b. Male 26. What is your age? (Circle ONE.)

a. Under 18 b. Between 18 and 21 c. Between 22 and 25 d. Between 26 and 29 e. Between 30 and 34 f. Between 35 and 39 g. Between 40 and 44 h. Between 45-49 i. 50 or over

staffing practices of high-quality after- school programs · i staffing practices of high-quality...

Documents